coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant, who was born in 1964, is currently serving his prison sentence in the Tekirdağ Prison.
5.  On 26 March 1998, following a house search and the seizure of certain items, the applicant was taken into police custody on suspicion of being a member of the TKP/ML-TIKKO (Communist Party of Turkey//Marxist‑Leninist Turkish Workers and Peasants’ Liberation Army), an illegal organisation.
6.  According to the applicant’s statements, he was questioned by police officers on an unspecified date but exercised his right to remain silent. During the questioning, he was not provided with a lawyer.
7.  In the meantime, on 29 March 1998, a certain co-accused L.L. was confronted with the applicant, in the absence of a lawyer, and identified him as the secretary of the Marmara District and the person responsible for the Istanbul branch of the organisation.
8.  On 1 April 1998, the applicant and twenty-two other accused persons were examined by a doctor who noted that none of them showed signs of physical violence apart from three of them, including L.L. According to the medical report, L.L. had a three-centimetre ecchymosis on her back and face.
9.  On the same day, the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor and the investigating judge at the Istanbul State Security Court where he denied the allegations, in the absence of his lawyer. In his statements, the applicant also mentioned that he had not been provided with a lawyer during his police custody despite his request to that effect. He also denied the confrontation and identification records in his statements made to the public prosecutor. After the questioning was over, the investigating judge remanded the applicant in custody.
10.  On 21 April 1998 the Istanbul Public Prosecutor issued an indictment, charging the applicant under section 168 of the former Turkish Criminal Code with being a leader of an armed organisation.
11.  On 6 July 1998 the applicant was released pending trial.
12.  On 26 October 2001 the first-instance court convicted the applicant as charged.
13.  On 19 November 2001 the applicant was detained to serve his prison sentence.
14.  On 14 February 2002 the Court of Cassation quashed the conviction for lack of reasoning.
15.  On 26 December 2003 the Istanbul State Security Court once again convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to eighteen years and nine months’ imprisonment. It noted that, according to the confrontation and identification records, certain of his co-accused, namely M.Ş., L.L., T.Ö. and M.Ş., had identified the applicant as the district leader of the organisation. It further found it established that he had taken part in a number of the organisation’s activities such as hanging illegal banners, throwing Molotov cocktails and participating in illegal demonstrations. The court concluded that the applicant had acted as district leader of the organisation in Istanbul.
16.  On 25 May 2004 the Court of Cassation upheld the conviction.
5.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Cantemir.
6.  On 3 March 2008 the Cantemir District Court found the applicant guilty of unlawfully appropriating money (1,400 Moldovan lei (MDL)) collected by her community to fund certain celebrations. She was ordered to pay a fine of 600 conventional units (each such unit being equal to MDL 20; overall MDL 12,000 (approximately 775 euros (EUR) at the time) and was barred from holding public office for two years and a half.
7.  On 7 July 2008 the Cahul Court of Appeal partly upheld that judgment, relying on a different paragraph of the Criminal Code, but preserving the sentence. That judgment was upheld by the Supreme Court of Justice in a final judgment of 26 November 2008.
8.  The applicant asked for an extension of the payment period as she did not have the money, being a single mother with an underage child and, at that time, experiencing difficulties with a pregnancy, for which she received hospital treatment during the period between 1 September 2008 and 3 February 2009. The court accepted her request and allowed her a two-month extension. However, the applicant failed to pay the fine by this new deadline.
9.  On 20 February 2009 a bailiff from the Cantemir enforcement office asked the Cantemir District Court to replace the fine with detention owing to the applicant’s failure to pay. The applicant, who was not represented by a lawyer, asked the court to replace the fine with unpaid community service stating that she would try to pay the fine before the end of the year. On the same day the court accepted the bailiff’s request and ordered the applicant’s detention for twelve months (one month for every 50 conventional units - see paragraph 14 below), noting that the law prohibited imposing a community service order on pregnant women such as the applicant.
10.  The applicant was arrested on the same day and imprisoned. According to her submission, her underage child was left at home without supervision. On 21 February 2009 her lawyer appealed against the sentence.
11.  On 12 March 2009 the Cahul Court of Appeal accepted the lawyer’s appeal and quashed the lower court’s decision, sending the case for retrial by the Cantemir District Court. It found that the applicant had not been given legal representation during the hearing of 20 February 2009, even though that right was guaranteed by law and she had expressly requested it. Therefore, the lower court had “committed a serious violation of the rules of criminal procedure, which is the basis for annulling the decision ...”. The court noted in the operative part of its decision, inter alia, that the applicant was to continue being kept in detention.
12.  On 25 March 2009 the applicant’s lawyer lodged a request with the Cantemir District Court for an urgent examination of the case, stating that the fine had been paid in full on 12 March 2009 and enclosing a payment order as proof. He claimed that his client was therefore being detained illegally.
13.  On 31 March 2009 the Cantemir District Court accepted the applicant’s lawyer’s request and discontinued the proceedings initiated by the bailiff. The applicant was released on that day.
5.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in İzmir.
6.  The applicant, a businessman, was convicted for having drawn a number of cheques without having sufficient funds in his bank account, an offence defined in the now repealed Law No. 3167 on Cheques (see “Relevant Domestic Law and Practice”). He was sentenced to a prison term of four years, eleven months and twenty-six days. He started serving his sentence on 11 April 2007.
7.  While he was serving his prison sentence in Buca Prison in İzmir, the applicant wrote to the High Council for Elections on 28 June 2007 and stated that his name was on the electoral roll for the forthcoming general elections of 22 July 2007. He added that this was possibly due to an error on the part of the High Council for Elections which must have overlooked the fact that he, as a convicted prisoner, was unable to vote. Referring to the judgment in the case of Hirst v. the United Kingdom (no. 2) [GC] (no. 74025/01, ECHR 2005‑IX) the applicant requested that he should nevertheless be allowed to cast his vote in the July 2007 elections. He added that the right to vote was a right guaranteed in, inter alia, Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. He argued that the Hirst judgment, when read in conjunction with section 90 of the Constitution (see “Relevant Domestic Law and Practice” below), meant that the High Council for Elections was under an obligation to make the necessary arrangements in order to enable him to vote.
8.  On 29 June 2007 the High Council for Elections replied to the applicant’s letter, and informed him that pursuant to section 7 § 3 of Law No. 298 (see “Relevant Domestic Law and Practice” below) it was not possible for him to vote. The High Council for Elections added that it was in the process of correcting its records to reflect the applicant’s status as a convicted prisoner.
9.  A similarly worded letter was sent to the applicant by the Chairman of the High Council for Elections on 2 July 2007.
10.  On 22 July 2007 general elections took place and the applicant was unable to cast his vote.
11.  Although the applicant’s prison sentence was to end on 1 April 2012, he was released from prison on probation on 9 April 2009 pursuant to Law No. 647 for good behaviour (see “Relevant Domestic Law and Practice” below). However, in accordance with the applicable legislation, the applicant’s inability to vote continued until 1 April 2012.
4.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in İstanbul.
5.  On 25 September 1990, when the applicant was a conscript in the army, a clash broke out between the security forces and a group of terrorists. During the incident the applicant was severely wounded by gunshots. Subsequently, he was treated in different military hospitals. According to a medical report, dated 14 November 1991, the applicant’s work capability had been reduced by 33%. Consequently, on 2 April 1992 he was declared to be suffering from a permanent disability and discharged from the army. He was also awarded a sixth-degree disability pension.
6.  In the following years the applicant started suffering from persistent headaches and dizziness, and had sleeping problems. In 2004 a CT scan revealed an unidentified metallic object in the left orbital area. Subsequently, in 2007, the applicant was admitted to the neurosurgery department of the GATA Military Hospital and another CT scan revealed that he had a bullet in his head, measuring 15 x 10 mm. The doctors stated that removing the bullet was potentially life-threatening.
7.  On 19 September 2007 the applicant applied to the Ministry of Defence for compensation in respect of his injury. He alleged that, on account of medical negligence, the bullet in his head had remained unnoticed and that he had sustained further pecuniary damage as this fact had not been taken into account in calculating his disability pension.
8.  Following tacit dismissal of the claim by the administrative authorities, on 16 January 2008 the applicant instituted two separate actions in the Supreme Military Administrative Court, one for the pecuniary damage and the other for the non-pecuniary damage he had sustained on account of the bullet which had been found in his head in 2007.
9.  On 21 January and 18 February 2009 respectively the Supreme Military Administrative Court, by a majority, rejected both actions as being out of time. In both decisions the court held that notwithstanding the fact that the applicant had not been aware of the bullet in his head until 2007, pursuant to section 43(1) of the Supreme Military Administrative Court Act, his compensation claims should have been lodged within five years of the incident.
10.  On 22 April 2009 the Supreme Military Administrative Court rejected a rectification request lodged by the applicant. Its decision was served on the applicant on 6 May 2009.
4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Budapest.
5.  On 18 December 1999 the applicant brought a labour action against her former employer for unlawful dismissal.
6.  After holding several hearings and obtaining expert evidence, the Budapest Labour Court dismissed the action on 28 February 2005. The applicant appealed.
7.  On 26 August 2005 the Budapest Regional Court, acting as a second-instance court, reversed the first-instance decision and ordered the defendant to pay the applicant 180,582 Hungarian forints (HUF)[1] in unpaid employment benefits plus interests and HUF 200,000[2] in non-pecuniary damages. The applicant filed a petition for review.
8.  On 25 October 2006 the Supreme Court decided that the petition had not disclosed a breach of the relevant law. Although this decision was given in a single-judge procedure as to the admissibility of the petition under section 273 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, in fact it dealt with the merits of the applicant’s case and contained detailed reasoning.
9.  Meanwhile, on 11 November 2005 the applicant applied for the enforcement of the second-instance judgment. Apparently she miscalculated the claimed interests; therefore the debtor’s bank could not comply with the prompt collection order, which was issued by the Budapest Labour Court on an un-specified date. Thus, after clarifying the proper amount, the court issued a new enforcement order on 2 April 2007. The judgment having been complied with by the defendant, the court withdrew the enforcement order on 26 April 2007.
5.  The applicant was born in 1946. Currently, he is serving a sentence at Tököl Prison.
6.  In late 1999 criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant, a multiple recidivist, on charges of fraud and other offences. On 19 January 2000 a bill of indictment was preferred. The applicant was detained on remand until 16 May 2003.
7.  On 27 February 2004 a hearing was held and the applicant was convicted on nineteen counts of fraud and forgery of documents. This judgment was adopted in absentia, since the applicant had absconded.
8.  Meanwhile, in another case, the applicant was additionally indicted for aggravated fraud and other offences in late 2003. On 15 September 2004 he was convicted in absentia, since he had absconded.
9.  On 28 November 2006 the Szolnok District Court imposed on the applicant a cumulative sentence of five years and six months of strict regime imprisonment. This decision was upheld by the Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok County Regional Court, acting as a second-instance court, on 8 February 2008.
10.  In autumn 2006 the applicant filed a request for retrial against the conviction of 15 September 2004. Given the conviction in absentia, this request was granted on 29 November 2006 by the Regional Court. After several hearings, on 29 November 2007 the applicant was partly acquitted of the charges and his sentence was mitigated in respect of the remainder by the District Court. The amended sentence was included in another cumulative sentence.
11.  The applicant did not appeal against this conviction but filed a petition for review. On 27 February 2008 the Supreme Court rejected his petition for review, since it only concerned the findings of fact and the assessment of evidence.
12.  Meanwhile, some time later in 2006, the applicant filed a request for retrial against the conviction of 27 February 2004. Given the conviction in absentia, this request was granted on 30 November 2006 by the Regional Court. On 8 January 2008 he was partly acquitted of the charges, and his sentence was mitigated in respect of the remainder by the District Court. On appeal, his sentence was further mitigated on 4 November 2008 by the Regional Court.
13.  The applicant’s further complaints raised before the District Court about the manner in which the cumulative sentence had been calculated appear to have been to no avail.
14.  The applicant is presently serving a previous sentence of twelve years, whose probation has been cancelled on account of his intervening new convictions.
4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Dunaharaszti.
5.  On 20 December 1993 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant on charges of fraud.
6.  The investigation was suspended between 14 May 1997 and 4 June 2003, because international legal assistance needed to be sought from several foreign States.
7.  A bill of indictment was preferred on 27 June 2003 on charges of fraudulent bankruptcy, embezzlement and forgery of public documents.
8. After ten hearings between 20 June 2006 and 28 September 2009, on 2 November 2009 the Pest Central District Court convicted the applicant of fraudulent bankruptcy and forgery of public documents and sentenced him to a fine. The applicant waived the right to appeal; and the judgment became final on the same day. It contained only a short reasoning which was confined to the facts of the case and the applicable law. The reasoning did not appreciate the length of the proceedings as a mitigating factor.
9.  In the course of these criminal proceedings, on 27 February 1995 the applicant’s passport was withdrawn under section 2(1a) of Act no. XXVIII of 1989 on Travelling Abroad and Passports, because criminal proceedings involving serious charges were pending against him.
10.  From 1 September 1998 onwards, the travel ban was maintained under a new provision, namely, section 16(1a) of Act no. XII of 1998 on Travelling Abroad. As of 1 July 2003, the travel ban was annulled under this latter legislation. The Government submitted that, in principle, the applicant had therefore become able to travel with his identity card to Switzerland and Croatia and after 1 May 2004, to the Member States of the European Economic Area. The applicant submitted that, in reality, he could not do so, because the court in charge had not duly notified the passport authority of the abolition of the travel ban, which thus remained a formal legal obstacle to travelling abroad as such, in accordance with sections 146(3) and 146(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as in force in the relevant period.
4.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Sarkad.
5.  On 30 March 1992 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant for fencing and other crimes.  On 6 December 1994 a bill of indictment was preferred against him and ten others.
6.  The Budapest XVIII/XIX District Court held several hearings, at several of which the applicant did not appear. For his absconding, an arrest warrant was issued against him.
7.  On 5 October 2007 the District Court convicted the applicant of fencing and forgery of private documents, but refrained from imposing a sentence on him for a two-year probation period. The applicant waived his right to appeal, so the judgment’s reasoning was shortened, and it became final on the same day.
8.  On the basis of the same investigation an additional bill of indictment was preferred against the applicant for further accounts of fencing and forgery of private documents on 17 March 1995.
9.  After holding several hearings, the Nyíregyháza District Court delivered a judgment on 5 November 1997 which was quashed by the Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg County Regional Court on 18 March 1998.
10.  The applicant did not appear at several hearings, so an arrest warrant was issued against him.
11.  On 6 October 2006 the District Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to eight months of imprisonment. Due to the applicant’s withdrawal of his appeal, the judgment became final on 25 January 2007.
The extraordinary protraction of the proceedings was mentioned in the judgment as an aggravating circumstance. The Government, however, claimed that the length had actually been taken into account as a weighty mitigating factor.
4.  The applicant is a construction company, a legal entity, based in Istanbul.
5.  On 7 May 1999 a traffic insurance company lodged a case with the Fatih Civil Court of First Instance against the applicant company, claiming compensation on account of a traffic accident.
6.  On 16 July 2002 the court granted the plaintiff’s claim and subsequently the applicant company appealed that decision.
7.  On 4 December 2003 the Court of Cassation quashed the decision of the court on the grounds that the applicant company’s right to examine witnesses against it was breached.
8.  On 29 June 2004 the Fatih Civil Court of First Instance, to which the case had been remitted, after having examined the witnesses once again accepted the plaintiff’s request.
9.  On 13 March 2006 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision.
10.  On 21 September 2006 the Court of Cassation dismissed a request by the applicant company for rectification of the judgment.
11.  On 2 November 2006 the decision of the Court of Cassation was notified to the applicant company.
4.  The applicant is a limited liability company with it seat in Budapest.
5.  On 21 December 1995 the applicant’s predecessor obtained a retroactive building permit from the second-instance building control authority. On 10 February 1996 the neighbours brought an action seeking the judicial review of the administrative decision before the Pest Central District Court.
6.  After six hearings the case was transferred to the Budapest Regional Court.
7.  On 10 October 2000 the proceedings were interrupted due to the death of the fourth plaintiff.
8.  On 21 March 2001 the applicant company requested permission to enter the proceedings as an intervener (beavatkozó) on the respondent’s side.
9.  After the parties had resolved the question of succession of the deceased party, on 9 December 2003 the proceedings were resumed, and the applicant joined the case as intervener. On the same day the Budapest Regional Court gave judgment.
10.  On 2 March 2005 the Budapest Court of Appeal, acting as a second-instance court, quashed the judgment, and remitted the case to the first instance.
11.  On 1 December 2005 and 22 November 2006 the Budapest Regional Court held two hearings.
12.  On 16 April 2008 a final judgment was adopted in the case.
4.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Budapest.
5.  On 18 June 2000 the applicant’s ex-husband lodged an action for divorce and partition of matrimonial property against the applicant.
6.  On 6 November 2007 the Buda Central District Court delivered a judgment.
7.  Both the applicant and the plaintiff appealed. On 4 September 2008 the Budapest Regional Court, acting as a second-instance court, delivered a judgment partly modifying the first-instance judgment.
8.  The applicant’s ex-husband lodged a petition for review with the Supreme Court, which was dismissed on 6 October 2009, after an examination on the merits.
4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Budapest.
5.  On 25 November 2002 the applicant lodged an action for annulment of a property sale and purchase agreement with the Budapest XVIII and XIX District Court.
6.  On 10 April 2003 the court held the first hearing and transmitted the case to the Budapest Regional Court for reasons of competence.
7.  On 12 April 2005, after one hearing, the proceedings were interrupted. On 20 April 2005, and subsequently on another three occasions, the applicant requested the continuation of the proceedings, which were eventually resumed in 2008.
8.  On 7 December 2009 the court delivered a decision dismissing the applicant’s action.
9.  On 28 October 2010 the Budapest Court of Appeal, acting as a second-instance court, dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
10.  On 29 November 2011 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s petition for review, after an examination on the merits. This decision was served on the applicant’s lawyer on 2 April 2012.